Decision Center for a Desert City: the Science and Policy of Climate Uncertainty

DECISION CENTER FOR A DESERT CITY: THE SCIENCE AND POLICY OF CLIMATE UNCERTAINTY

Science Vulnerability and and Technology Resilience Policy

Climate Decision Science Decision Science Center for a Desert City

Decision Education Tools

Outreach

Proposal Submitted to National Science Foundation July 15, 2003

Patricia A. Gober, Department of Geography Charles L. Redman, Center for Environmental Studies

Robert Bolin, Department of Sociology Grady Gammage Jr., Attorney at Law Thomas Taylor, Department of Mathematics DECISION CENTER FOR A DESERT CITY: THE SCIENCE AND POLICY OF CLIMATE UNCERTAINTY

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Project Summary ......

Project Description ...... 1

RATIONALE FOR THE CENTER ...... 1

KNOWLEDGE AREAS ...... 3 Science and Technology Policy Analysis, and the Construction of Boundary Organiza- tions...... 3 Climate Science...... 4 Vulnerability Analysis and Resilience Theory...... 5 Decision Science...... 6 Application of Knowledge Areas...... 7

TARGETED RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES ...... 7 Focused Climate and Hydrological Studies...... 8 Physical Vulnerability...... 8 Social Vulnerability...... 8 Spatial Variability in Municipal Uncertainty...... 8 Planning on the Urban Fringe...... 8 Competing for Water under Conditions of Climate Uncertainty...... 8 Cascading Effects of Urban Growth...... 8 Existing and Envisioned Water Markets...... 9 Politics...... 9 Native American Water Rights...... 9

AREAS OF ENGAGEMENT ...... 9 GIScience and Decision-Support Tools ...... 9 Education and Human Resource Development...... 10 Outreach Activities ...... 11

THE STUDY AREA ...... 13

RESULTS OF PRIOR SUPPORT ...... 15

MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 16 Science and Technology Policy/Boundary Organizations...... 17 Climate Science...... 19 Vulnerability Analysis and Resilience Theory...... 19 Page

Decision Science...... 19 GIScience and Decision-Support Tools/Outreach Activities...... 19 Education and Human Resource Development...... 19

BRIDGES TO THE COMMUNITY ...... 19

BROADER IMPACTS ...... 20

References ...... 1 COVER SHEET FOR PROPOSAL TO THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT/SOLICITATION NO./CLOSING DATE/if not in response to a program announcement/solicitation enter NSF 03-041 FOR NSF USE ONLY NSF 03-552 07/15/03 NSF PROPOSAL NUMBER FOR CONSIDERATION BY NSF ORGANIZATION UNIT(S) (Indicate the most specific unit known, i.e. program, division, etc.)

BCS - CCRI-DEC MAKING UNDER UNCERTAI (continued) DATE RECEIVED NUMBER OF COPIES DIVISION ASSIGNED FUND CODE DUNS# (Data Universal Numbering System) FILE LOCATION 943360412 EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN) OR SHOW PREVIOUS AWARD NO. IF THIS IS IS THIS PROPOSAL BEING SUBMITTED TO ANOTHER FEDERAL TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (TIN) A RENEWAL AGENCY? YES NO IF YES, LIST ACRONYM(S) AN ACCOMPLISHMENT-BASED RENEWAL 860196696 NAME OF ORGANIZATION TO WHICH AWARD SHOULD BE MADE ADDRESS OF AWARDEE ORGANIZATION, INCLUDING 9 DIGIT ZIP CODE Arizona State University Arizona State University Box 3503 AWARDEE ORGANIZATION CODE (IF KNOWN) Tempe, AZ. 85287 0010819000 NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION, IF DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE ADDRESS OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION, IF DIFFERENT, INCLUDING 9 DIGIT ZIP CODE

PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE (IF KNOWN)

IS AWARDEE ORGANIZATION (Check All That Apply) SMALL BUSINESS MINORITY BUSINESS IF THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL (See GPG II.C For Definitions) FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION WOMAN-OWNED BUSINESS THEN CHECK HERE TITLE OF PROPOSED PROJECT Decision Center for a Desert City

REQUESTED AMOUNT PROPOSED DURATION (1-60 MONTHS) REQUESTED STARTING DATE SHOW RELATED PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL NO. IF APPLICABLE $ 7,497,944 60months 01/01/04 CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX(ES) IF THIS PROPOSAL INCLUDES ANY OF THE ITEMS LISTED BELOW BEGINNING INVESTIGATOR (GPG I.A) HUMAN SUBJECTS (GPG II.C.11) DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (GPG II.C) Exemption Subsection or IRB App. Date PROPRIETARY & PRIVILEGED INFORMATION (GPG I.B, II.C.6) INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES: COUNTRY/COUNTRIES INVOLVED HISTORIC PLACES (GPG II.C.9) (GPG II.C.9) SMALL GRANT FOR EXPLOR. RESEARCH (SGER) (GPG II.C.11) VERTEBRATE ANIMALS (GPG II.C.11) IACUC App. Date HIGH RESOLUTION GRAPHICS/OTHER GRAPHICS WHERE EXACT COLOR REPRESENTATION IS REQUIRED FOR PROPER INTERPRETATION (GPG I.E.1) PI/PD DEPARTMENT PI/PD POSTAL ADDRESS Department of Geography PI/PD FAX NUMBER Tempe, AZ 852870104 602-965-8313 United States NAMES (TYPED) High Degree Yr of Degree Telephone Number Electronic Mail Address PI/PD NAME Patricia Gober PhD 1975 602-965-7533 [email protected] CO-PI/PD Robert Bolin PhD 1976 480-965-3546 [email protected] CO-PI/PD Grady Gammage JD 1976 480-965-9011 [email protected] CO-PI/PD Charles L Redman PhD 1971 480-965-2975 [email protected] CO-PI/PD Thomas J Taylor PhD 1983 480-965-3778 [email protected] Page 1 of 2 DECISION CENTER FOR A DESERT CITY: THE SCIENCE AND POLICY OF CLIMATE UNCERTAINTY

Project Summary

The existence of urbanized Phoenix is graphic testament to the power of human planning and management to deal with severe climatic challenges. Faced with a place that alternates between extreme aridity and episodic flooding, successive waves of desert dwellers took steps to implement one of the most extensive water storage and delivery systems on the planet. This physical infrastructure of dams, reservoirs, canals, and aqueducts, as well as the operating rules that govern its management, has insulated Phoenix from the harshness and uncertainty of its climate—until recently. Current drought conditions that have brought crisis to Southern California, Las Vegas, and rural Arizona have alerted the general public that rapidly urbanizing Phoenix is not far behind. Growing concern among water managers has brought them to collaborate with ASU scientists and policy analysts to enhance the region’s adaptive capacity to deal with climate uncertainties in the future. Phoenix’s water management is a superb laboratory for study because of its past success, the severity of its current risk, the magnitude of future demand, and the quintessential importance of water to the region’s economic development. Five iterative activities characterize the academic-practitioner collaboration at the heart of the proposed Decision Center for a Desert City. First the teams will build a comprehensive model of central Arizona’s climate-water supply-demand relationships and their uncertainties. Second, they will develop formal decision models reflecting real-world problems. Third, they will formulate scenarios to explore system dynamics under alternate climatic conditions and communicate them in an immersive Decision Theater. Fourth, stakeholders will evaluate the process and the tools provided. And finally, researchers, policy makers, and stakeholders will assess the outcomes and actions to be taken. The intellectual merit of this proposed center lies in a deeper understanding of human decision making in the face of climatic uncertainty in a rapidly urbanizing region. Studies will investigate the spatial and temporal impacts of climate cycles and global warming on the desert Southwest and identify people, places, and times most vulnerable to drought and flood. In pin- pointing critical variables and thresholds in coupled human-natural systems, results will yield early-warning signals of catastrophic system change. Multi-method approaches to decision making will produce richer depictions of human decision making and more usable decision tools. Finally, this social experiment involving close interaction between scientists and policy makers will help refine the nature of a successful boundary organization that links science and policy. By focusing on engagement areas of tools, education, and outreach, the Center will have broader impacts on societal decision making. Interdisciplinary teams will produce better climate forecasts and information programs to improve their implementation, develop GIS-based decision tools for civic leaders, citizens, students, and other researchers, and create innovative education programs that foster interdisciplinary study of coupled human-natural systems and first-hand, real-world experiences. The culmination of our outreach efforts will be the development of a Decision Theater, an actual physical space at our downtown Phoenix campus. At the Decision Theater, non-scientific audiences will respond to interactive climate scenarios and social responses to those scenarios. The products of science, policy analysis, decision making, and public engagement eventually will be adopted well beyond the Phoenix area by neighboring states and rapidly urbanizing regions around the globe. Project Description

RATIONALE FOR THE CENTER The scientific world has moved to the point where we must now consider the timely interface between enhanced scientific understanding and human decision making. Nowhere is the challenge of developing this interface more daunting and more significant than at the juncture of environmental science and water-management decisions. We propose to build a “boundary organization” that bridges research on climatology, vulnerability analysis, resilience theory, and decision science with the institutions and individuals making water-management decisions in the American West. The overarching aim is to reduce vulnerability to environmental risk by improving the adaptive capacity to prepare for and respond to uncertain climate events and their effects. The confluence of massive population growth and the threat of global warming in the context of an already uncertain climatic environment motivates our proposal to establish a Decision Center for Desert City (DCDC). The arid climate of this desert region is prone to unusually high variability in precipitation (Fig.1) leading to periodic droughts (like the present one) and flooding (as recent as 10 years ago). Technological and engineering solutions to climatic uncertainty, such as large federally funded dams and reservoirs, deep-well groundwater pumping, irrigation canals, and aqueducts in themselves will not solve the West’s water problems. Massive population growth and increasing demand for water threatens the delicate balance among users of Western water, a fact acknowledged by Interior Secretary Gale Norton’s Water 2025 Initiative to prevent water crisis

Figure 1. Plot of the Palmer Hydrological Drought Index (PHDI) from Jan 1895 to May 2003 for the Phoenix area. High negative values indicate severe drought; high positive values indicate extreme flooding.

Project Description - 1 and conflict in the West. Phoenix is at the epicenter of areas in “potential water supply crisis by 2025” (Fig. 2). Phoenix added more than 100,000 residents annually between 2000 and 2002 (from 3.25 to 3.49 million) and is projected to grow to 4.5 million in 2020 and to 6.3 million by 2040 (Arizona Department of Economic Security 2002) with predict- able increases in urban water demand. Added to demo- graphic pressure is uncertainty associated with global climate change that has the potential to produce a sub- Figure 2. Potential Water Supply Crises by 2025. Areas where existing stantive increase in the dura- supplies are inadequate to meet water demands for people, farms, and the tion, frequency, and severity environment: Credit: US Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. of droughts in the region (Houghton et al. 2001). Although our research will focus on decision making in Phoenix, it must consider a larger geographic setting because, like many cities in the West, Phoenix relies on watersheds that are hundreds of miles away from its water users. A second reason for casting our net more broadly is that Phoenix’s influence reaches far beyond the urbanized area to surrounding small towns and rural areas, where economies are driven by second-home development and where their dependency on limited groundwater aquifers makes them more vulnerable to sustained drought. We seek to develop a program of research and public engagement that is applicable to other rapidly growing regions. Central Arizona is shifting dramatically from a mid-sized, regional center to one of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas. What is learned in Phoenix at this moment offers lessons and methods for other newly urbanizing regions, particularly those in arid and semi-arid environments, where urban growth is now focused. The Center for Environmental Studies (CES) at Arizona State University (ASU) is well positioned to incubate an interdisciplinary center at the junction of science and decision making for five reasons. First, we have expertise in the knowledge and engagement areas needed to understand climatic uncertainty, vulnerability, and decision making and to produce innovative, useful decision tools. Second, we have an established track record of interdisciplinary collaboration dealing with complex human-natural systems that drive water use in the West. Third, we have longstanding relationships with representatives of the region’s water management agencies and have consulted with them extensively in preparing this proposal. Fourth, ASU is developing a new infrastructure to support the study of newly urbanizing regions, an effort that dovetails with our goal to generalize the lessons and methods developed in this project (http://ces.asu.edu/csrur). Finally, we have the capacity to work at a variety of time scales to consider prehistoric and historic contexts for climate variability and human response.

Project Description - 2 KNOWLEDGE AREAS Four knowledge areas are at the heart of the Decision Center for a Desert City (Fig. 3):

Science and Technology Policy Analysis, and the Construction of Boundary Organiza- tions. We address the interface of science and policy from both theoretical and practical perspectives: to see what we can learn about the nature of boundary-spanning activities in general and what models we can use in Phoenix to guide the structure and function of our Center. On the theoretical side, Kinzig et al. (in press) noted fundamental differences in the way science Science Vulnerability and and and policy communities perceive and deal with risk Technology Resilience and uncertainty. The scientific process is built on Policy advancing knowledge, and the costs of incorrect knowledge are quite high. Scientists use high evidentiary standards and accept only a small Climate Decision Science Decision Science probability that their conclusions will be in err. Center for a Policy making is built on the goal of addressing Desert City societal problems. Timeliness is important and, consequently, decisions often must be made with an Decision Education incomplete understanding of the problem at hand. Tools Four difficulties arise from these differing perspectives: first, a failure to appreciate the Outreach fundamentally different context in which science and policy function—the cast of characters, their Figure 3. Knowledge and Engagement Areas reward systems, and methods of evaluation. for the DCDC. Second, scientists sometimes do not address the problems that policy makers and decision makers perceive to be important because they shy away from complex, inherently uncertain social-environmental systems in favor of more reductionist approaches where results meet strict evidentiary standards. Third, scientists may find it difficult to quantify uncertainty and therefore avoid such uncertainty altogether. And fourth, the neutral language of evidentiary standards can sometimes mask a debate that is, at its heart, about values. Scientists advocate certain policies claiming scientific objectivity when, in fact, their positions derive from their own values, and policy makers invoke scientific uncertainty as justification for inaction on certain issues; witness the use of climate science to justify inaction on global-change policy (Pielke and Sarewitz 2002). What is needed, then, is a more accurate and effective socio-political model of the science-policy interface that recognizes the fluidity of the boundary dynamics and improves problem solving. For instance, Jasanoff’s (1990) examination of science advisory boards for US regularity agencies showed the policy efforts were more successful in the absence of sharp conceptual distinctions between science and policy. Boundary-spanning functions are especially important in the area of climate change because it is marked by scientific uncertainty and high-stake decisions (Agrawala et al. 2001). In addition to the acknowledged uncertainty in climate science, competing claims of the exploitation of scientific uncertainty for political or economic advantage can exacerbate social response to vulnerability from climate change. Policy analysts have documented how increasingly sophisticated nongovernmental organizations and industries use counter-science and counter-

Project Description - 3 expertise to challenge policy decisions and prolong controversies (Eden 1996). Counter-science claims are often employed to exploit uncertainty in a strategic manner to stall decisions (Jasanoff 1990; Laird, 1993; Mitchell et al.1991). Further complicating the policy response, the media often represents scientific uncertainty in climate science as a convenient narrative frame for news stories (Zehr 2000). The practical building of a boundary-spanning capacity draws upon research in the emerging field of science and technology policy analysis. This field has developed a number of models that link scientific knowledge with policy making using the concept of real-time technology assessment (Guston 1997, Guston et al. 2000). Field application of the interface between uncertain predictions related to climate and social adaptation has had substantial experimental experience through programs such as the International Research Institute for Climate Predictions and Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, among others. This experience reveals that boundary-spanning organizations must be designed to link with all stakeholders in a potentially influenced arena. In this particular case, we will take the experiences of earlier experiments and mesh those with experiences drawn from the literature (Clark and Majone 1985; Guston 1997) to develop an interactive, data-driven, stakeholder-engaged, and publically aware organization.

Climate Science. In our Decision Center, climate science will articulate the nature of climatic uncertainty in a way that is useful to managers and transparent to the public. Better understanding of the climate system and its spatial and temporal variability will lead to a reduction in uncertainty, but more importantly, to an increase in the range of plausible choices available to decision makers willing to accept uncertainty as a fact of life (Pielke and Sarewitz 2002). We will begin by reviewing atmospheric and anthropogenic forces that underlie precipitation in Phoenix and its watersheds. Recently, scientists have examined how the 50-80 year Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which is related to a longer-term oscillation in sea-surface temperatures in the North Pacific, interacts with El Niño-Southern Oscillation to affect precipitation in Arizona (Mantua et al. 1997; Gershunov and Barnett 1998). In addition to uncertainties associated with natural cycles, there is variability associated with solar forcing that can lead to even more extremes in climate. Historical data cover only a few cycles or, in some cases, a part of a cycle of the phenomena described above. Indirect data (ice cores and tree rings) are used to provide proxy historical data in some cases, but introduce another source of uncertainty. Part of the uncertainty in predicting future climatic conditions stems from an incomplete understanding of the causal connections among elements of the climate system, incomplete data, and the necessity of using proxy or indirect data sources. There are also anthropogenic effects such as emissions of greenhouse gases, aerosols, and increased atmospheric water vapor. Examples are moist convection (Zehnder 2001); interactions among clouds, water vapor, and radiation; the surface energy budget and land-cover characterization (Zehnder 2002); and the coupling between the atmosphere and oceans. The role that the active biosphere plays in each system’s response to climate forcing has only recently been included into climate models. The uncertainty in the model parameterization schemes and the nonlinear coupling between physical processes provides another source of uncertainty for predictions of the state of climate and water sources. Fundamental knowledge of the climate system is vital to setting the boundary values dictated by inherent uncertainties in the climate system. Climatologists will work with research teams to quantify the spatial and temporal variability in climatic uncertainty and formulate scenarios

Project Description - 4 spanning the ranges of conditions bounded by the uncertainties in natural and anthropogenic climate forcing and the character, size, and distribution of population.

Vulnerability Analysis and Resilience Theory. The environmental processes described above do not occur in a vacuum but are socially constructed by the people affected by them (Ingold and Kurttila 2000). How an event is perceived helps determine how individuals and local, state, and federal decision makers respond. When most of society learns about an event through information systems rather than personal experience, risks can be magnified or attenuated by the social institutions and processes that disseminate information. The social amplification of risk stems from intense media coverage of an event, distrust of managers involved, social-group mobilization, conflicts over values, and disappointments over failed promises (Kasperson and Kasperson 1996). Vulnerability analysis has shifted the focus of hazards research from the physical hazard itself (flood, drought, fire) to the social conditions that place people and settlements at risk or harm from a given environmental condition (Hewitt 1983, 1997; Bolin with Stanford 1998; Cutter 2003). Vulnerability analysis focuses on history, geography, and political economy to understand how particular configurations of human settlements, sociopolitical arrangements, environmental conditions, and social inequalities affect resource access and hazard exposure. Research suggests that the connections between poverty and vulnerability are strong (Hewitt 1997) and that the most vulnerable in society are typically those with the fewest choices, those whose lives may be constrained by discrimination, political powerlessness, physical disability, and lack of education and employment. Such “clusters of disadvantage” are evidenced in the course of actual disasters, where elements of vulnerability play out in the lives of people who attempt to cope and to recover their losses (Bolin with Stanford 1998). Addressing the same issues of human-environmental interaction, but from the collaborative perspective of ecology, economics, and other social sciences are proponents of resilience theory (Gunderson et al.1995; Holling 2001; Gunderson and Holling 2002). ASU recently joined the Resilience Alliance (Co-PI/PD Redman, Sr. Personnel Kinzig and Anderies are individual members), an international consortium of institutions that seeks novel ways to integrate science and policy to reduce vulnerability and achieve sustainability (http://resalliance.org). This cadre of researchers, whom our Center will collaborate with, investigates the source and role of change in adaptive systems, particularly the kinds of change that are nonlinear and transforming. Embedded in the notion of resilience is a capacity for self-organization, learning, and institution building in the face of uncertainties (see also Turner et al. 2003 for integration of resilience with vulnerability analysis). Using this body of knowledge, Alliance members seek to improve our understanding and management of complex adaptive systems (Berkes and Folke 1998; Folke et al. 2002) and have devoted considerable energy to the study of water-management systems internationally. One aspect of improving our ability to flexibly manage and respond in ways that enhance the resilience of a system lies in understanding the early warning indicators of undesirable state changes (Redman and Kinzig 2003). We must learn when climate variability can be absorbed by a system or when it crosses a critical threshold, engendering serious changes in the system. The presence of thresholds in human-natural systems demonstrates how subtle, cumulative change can sometimes have catastrophic effects. Resilient systems have the capacity to cope even when subjected to a high level of disturbance (such as from climate variability and/or change) and can reorganize when change is unavoidable. A set of critical variables and processes

Project Description - 5 create and maintain self-regulation in these systems. They include redundancy, diversity, modularity, spatial heterogeneity, rapid feedbacks, and ecological memory (Quinlan 2003).

Decision Science. A variety of approaches from decision science are relevant to understanding human decisions under climatic uncertainty and developing tools to help make better decisions. Expertise in computation-based tools such as multi-objective optimization, Bayesian estimation techniques (e.g., sequential Monte Carlo, ensemble Kalman Filter), and agent-based models will provide a strong scientific emphasis within our Center. Also, we will use our expertise in participatory decision-analysis frameworks, such as Integrated Assessment (IA) to insure that the mathematical and scientific results of these quantitative models are communicated with local decision makers and the public. Our strength will be in the dynamic interplay between computation and policy, with each informing and supporting the other. Water policy must trade off among conflicting goals, including efficiency, equity, and environmental protection. Given multiple criteria, a solution or plan is considered Pareto-optimal if no other solution exists that performs better on all objectives. Multi-objective decision-making computes the Pareto-optimal frontier and then proceeds to elucidate human preferences over it. Team members will adapt recent developments in sustainable, multi-objective water system modeling (Hsu and Cheng 2002; Cai et al. 2002; Newbold 2002) for long-term, intergenerational and interspecies water management in Arizona. The resulting Spatial Decision Support System will optimize flows, storage, amounts supplied from each source, amounts delivered to final customers and habitats, evaporation losses, infrastructure development, and so on, over the long term. It would examine tradeoffs among conflicting objectives and incorporate risk and uncertainty through chance-constrained programming (ReVelle et al. 1969) and “what-if” scenarios. Through simultaneous optimization of technology choice and water flows, the model will try to identify win-win solutions on the supposedly unattainable side of previous Pareto- optimal frontiers that had been generated assuming existing technologies (Wyman and Kuby 1996). Although multi-objective and chance-constrained programming are powerful decision- support tools, they assume that a known-probability distribution can characterize uncertainties and that a system-optimal solution can somehow be implemented. Therefore, we will employ another decision-science approach to study how these deviations from the “well-behaved” decision-making problem influence actual decision-making in uncertain systems and how different institutional arrangements affect this process. In cases where decisions are decentralized and made by individuals and groups with different perceptions of uncertainty and attitudes toward risk other approaches can be useful. Agent-based models quantify behavioral processes and pattern recognition in sequencing micro-social interactions and then examine the reciprocal relationship between individual micro-social processes generated by explicit decision rules and group ontologies (Griffin 2000, 2003; Janssen 2002). Groups, acting on the aggregate effect of individual rules, emerge as discrete entities that influence resource use, policy implementation, and most noteworthy by their actions, iteratively modify subsequent agent-level decisions. This reciprocal relationship between agent-level decisions and collective use of resources has been successfully modeled for other commodities; for example, North and colleagues (North, 2001; Macal and North 2003) have examined the dynamics of electricity and natural gas consumption in competitive resource markets. Effective water decisions require a characterization of climatic, political, and legal uncertainties. Limited Bayesian estimation methods, in the Kalman Filter, have been used in

Project Description - 6 demand and climatic forecasting for years (Harvey 1991). With growth in computing power, new algorithms for recursive Bayesian estimation bypass former restrictions and result in a scientific revolution of new solutions to unsolved problems. These methods, including sequential Monte Carlo and Ensemble Kalman Filter models (Doucet 2001; Evensen in press) produce a statistical ensemble of predictions that capture uncertainty about the future. They may be applied in fitting agent-based models to aggregate water-use data or assess the likelihood of Pareto-optimal frontiers under varying “what if” scenarios. In addition to these quantitative approaches to decision science, our Center will incorporate principles from the field of participatory decision analysis. In this emerging field, environmental researchers have developed decision-making models that focus upon public participation and communication between experts and citizens (von Winterfeldt and Edwards 1986; Keeney 1988; Hammond et al. 1999). In particular, Integrated Assessment (IA) provides a synthetic picture of complex problems where linkages are not addressed adequately in disciplinary research and makes scientific evidence accountable to the public (Kasemir et al. 1999). IA requires the active communication of scientific experts, stakeholders, and decision makers during environmental policy making (Rotmans and Asselt 2002).

Application of Knowledge Areas. To integrate the varying approaches of the above knowledge areas with the needs and perspectives of policy makers, the Decision Center for a Desert City will experiment with our own variation on Rotmans and van Asselt’s proposed Integrated Assessment framework, a framework that is iterative, cyclical, and participatory. There are two foundations to this framework: 1) the participation of interdisciplinary researchers; and 2) the participation of representatives of societal actors, such as the policy community, the business community, nongovernmental organizations, and the public. A core activity of our new Center will be to use the following five-step process to explore the dynamics of water management in response to uncertainties of climate variability as well as those of the legal, social, and political arenas. We will:

1. build a comprehensive, interdisciplinary model of the coupled human-natural system, including operational relationships and uncertainties; 2. develop formal decision models that reflect real-world problems and the range of approaches practitioners currently pursue; 3. formulate scenarios to explore system dynamics under varying climatic, social, and regulatory conditions; 4. have stakeholders evaluate the process and the tools offered, focusing upon what uncertainties matter to them and where they detect vulnerabilities; and 5. have stakeholders evaluate the outcome and actions to be taken.

The overall goal of Integrated Assessment and our adaptation of its principles is to insure that public values inform science and that the decision makers are able to make the best use of available science.

TARGETED RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES From discussions with representatives from the region’s water-management agencies, including the Salt River Project, The Arizona Department of Water Resources, the City of Phoenix, and the

Project Description - 7 Flood Control District of Maricopa County (see attached Letters of Commitment), we developed an initial research agenda organized around the following 10 opportunities:

Focused Climate and Hydrological Studies. Decision makers want better predictions of streamflow and groundwater availability and to know how these predictions vary under differing climate scenarios so that they can improve the basis upon which they make everyday decisions. Frequently made and profoundly important decisions include at what point to release or continue to store water in upstream reservoirs, whether to purchase Colorado River water or pump groundwater, how to manage allocations across users, and specific decisions such as whether to clear salt cedar from river channels in anticipation of a wet year. Physical Vulnerability. Vulnerability often takes the form of physical conditions that undermine the operation of essential systems, such as the increasing salinity of groundwater, contaminated aquifers, uneven yield across the aquifer, and uneven access to surface water distribution infrastructure. These physical constraints need to be fully understood in order to consider the effects of climate variability and global change in modeling current and future water supply. Social Vulnerability. Studies need to be conducted to identify how uncertainty can lead to vulnerability among certain populations or in specific landscapes associated with various climatic events and institutional contexts. Because vulnerability science considers the social in relation to the environmental, emphasis will be on the historical, geographic, political, social, and economic conditions that put people and places at risk. Spatial Variability in Municipal Uncertainty. Central Arizona has three major sources of primary water supply (Colorado River water delivered through the Central Arizona Project aqueduct, Salt and Verde river water delivered via the Salt River Project, and groundwater pumped from underground aquifers) and one source of secondary supply (effluent or reclaimed water from sewage treatment and water reclamation plants). Not all communities have equal access to these supplies and thus have different susceptibilities to drought, on both a short- and long-term basis. Planning on the Urban Fringe. In November 2000, the Arizona Legislature passed Growing Smarter Plus, a set of largely voluntary growth-management guidelines under which cities and towns identify water sources to meet future projected demands. The problem is that many cities and towns have identified the same supplies to meet future demands. We will undertake a comprehensive assessment of water planning in the region and provide a “neutral” forum for coordinating future plans. Competing for Water under Conditions of Climate Uncertainty. The vast majority of the region’s population growth will occur in outlying, rural areas where—until recently— farmers and the businesses that serve them dominated the economies. These communities are generally pro-development, and rely on consultants hired by developers to tell them that future water supplies are assured. We envision several case studies that will focus on water planning and decision making in these communities. Cascading Effects of Urban Growth. Decisions makers told us water supply issues are regional, not local, in scope, and that water supply problems in mountain recreational towns affect second home development that, in turn, affect the perception of the region and its quality of life for high-end executives. These perceptions are crucial to the region’s attempt to recast

Project Description - 8 itself as a knowledge economy. Case studies will focus on water and development decision making in recreational areas and their feedback to the Phoenix area. Existing and Envisioned Water Markets. Despite more than 50 years of massive urbanization, 44% of the region’s water is still used by agriculture (ADWR 2000). As pressure on the water supply grows due to urbanization and drought, some cities are preparing to buy or lease water from farmers and Indian tribes at costs significantly higher than the current cost. We will model regional water marketing and how it responds to climate variability under different regulatory regimes. Politics. In focus groups organized to plan this proposal, decision makers told us bluntly that they already factor climate uncertainty into their decision making, yet find uncertainties associated with political and legal frameworks to be more constraining. We propose a series of studies to set forth the legal-and-policy arena in which water decisions are made. Native American Water Rights. Native American communities will become more important players in regional water markets as their water claims are adjudicated by the courts, and income generated by water leases affects their economies and cultures. In conjunction with Native American partners, our Center will examine tribal decision making in the face of climatic uncertainty and the rapidly changing legal environment of Indian water rights.

AREAS OF ENGAGEMENT The true value of our Center will not be measured by new knowledge or targeted research alone, but by the degree to which we are able to engage all parties and develop effective tools of communication and decision making. GIScience and Decision-Support Tools. The fundamental purpose of an environmental spatial decision support system (ESDSS) is to provide quantitative and visual tools to assist decision makers with describing, understanding, and forecasting spatiotemporal relationships for specific human activities or physical processes. ESDSS has proven successful in a number of application contexts, including predicting climate change and flood risk assessment (Thumerer et al. 2000). Multicriteria evaluation techniques combine data management capabilities, display functions, and modeling tools to yield a more robust and sophisticated means of evaluating alternatives and reaching consensus (Carver 1991). The decision support system incorporates several analytic devices, including GIS, visualization, and spatial analysis (Armstrong et al. 1992). These tools are combined in applications that allow users to define initial conditions, select a suitable model, establish geographic parameters as inputs to the model, generate statistical results, visualize and manipulate output, and repeat selected steps under different scenarios. It is essential that these interfaces are allowed to scale along several dimensions. The expertise of the user audience will affect the complexity of the interface and the range of options presented. Interfaces must be available for a variety of computing platforms and connectivity. For some audiences, printed media are still an effective means of conveying information. Although most have access to the internet, differences in bandwidth and local host platforms dramatically affect the performance and interface options that can be delivered effectively. The spatial and temporal scope of the question may involve very discrete, high-resolution events up to regional and even global landscapes with very slow- cycling processes. The ability to handle multiple scales of environmental function and then link them analytically will be an important feature of this system.

Project Description - 9 The ultimate goal in this project is to create flexible, targeted, decision-support resources for researchers, policy makers, and the public that would be available through printed media, the Web, and our Decision Theater (see Outreach Activities). These audiences would have access to a system to evaluate how uncertainty affects existing and proposed policies and be able to assess the potential impact on environmental resources, social living conditions, and preservation of the natural habitat. Education and Human Resource Development. We recognize that education in the natural and social sciences must be structured by a consideration of age-appropriate goals. We also recognize the importance of diversity in our Center and will actively recruit minority and underrepresented students at all levels of our programming. Within the University, we train students in traditional disciplines and will continue to do so under the auspices of the DCDC. However, the Center also contributes to the area of interdisciplinary training and long-term team research and outreach, building upon the success of ASU’s Integrative Graduate Education and Research Training (IGERT) in Urban Ecology. Outside the University, we partner with many others to bring science training to policy makers and agencies, community constituents, and elementary and high school students. The Center offers new opportunities to expand faculty and student involvement in research in a local context. The certificate program for ASU students has three components: foundations, research, and outreach. Foundations are the fundamental courses that empower students to be active researchers and educators. Graduate and undergraduate students who are researchers within the Center will take two courses from among the Knowledge Areas and one course from an Engagement Area. Most of these courses will satisfy departmental and University requirements for degree completion as well. After completing these courses, students will enter the Research Community Seminar in which they define and develop their own research focus from the 10 targeted research opportunities. This seminar will include all students, offering them the opportunity to be part of an interdisciplinary community of research scholars. We expect to: 1) expose students to the research environment in broader terms than can be acquired in a single department; 2) guide students through the steps of research as practiced across sciences; 3) provide students with a community of peer scholars and mentors; and 4) encourage professional participation and leadership in the science community. Students will work separately on a research team that includes faculty members, graduate and undergraduate students. However, in the Research Community Seminar they will bring their training to the interdisciplinary context of the Center, developing research and communication skills as a member of a community of scholars. The culmination of their work will be a presentation at a national professional meeting. Finally, student researchers in the Center will participate in a Community Outreach Seminar in which they intern with Center affiliates including community constituents, agencies, policy makers, and K-12 educators. All students at this level in the program will join in a seminar that is an interdisciplinary community of interns extending their knowledge and receiving experience in the application of their ideas. We expect to: 1) guide the students in planning and implementing a partnership in the community; 2) expose them to a range of outreach activities; and 3) encourage application of current knowledge to benefit the community. Each student will select a specific partnership, but will also benefit from the sharing of experiences with other fellows. Graduate and undergraduate students will participate in this seminar together and be guided by specialists in outreach.

Project Description - 10 Grade 6-12 Education: Our goals are to: 1) expose young people to central concepts of the Center; 2) teach young people the process of scientific inquiry and the critical thinking of social science; and 3) empower teachers with local field/lab experiences and lesson plans. Our approach challenges teachers and students to first understand their local region and then broaden their thinking to national and global levels. Our Education Team will work with Center researchers, other environmental educators, and teachers to develop modules that reflect the targeted research opportunities of this proposal (see Pages 8-9). These modules will be aimed at core concepts and inquiry skills already being taught in the schools and will meet local and National Education Standards (including science, math, language arts and social studies standards). The National Science Standards call for science education to include personal and social perspective standards to help students develop the skills used in making decisions as citizens (NRC 1996). In particular, Lieberman and Hoody (1998) found that curriculum based on using the environment for interdisciplinary learning allows students to exercise thinking processes through which they begin to understand interrelationships among human and natural systems. The modules developed will build upon current Ecology Explorers investigations of spatial and temporal patterns of landscapes via aerial photographs, analyzing prehistoric to future climate data, and engaging teachers and students in decision-making processes (http://caplter.asu.edu/explorers). Tools developed for community members will be adapted to create a Web interface for broader audiences. The Education Team will work with the Arizona Geographic Alliance, founded in 1992 to develop educational opportunities and geography curriculum materials with K-12 teachers. The Alliance maintains frequent contact with more than 2400 geography teachers and is affiliated with the National Geographic Society’s network of state alliances. The success of any educational program depends on how positively attuned the teacher is to its implementation (Ebenezer and Zoller 1993). Thus, we will emphasize teacher education programs through a multiple series of school-year workshops with an opportunity for teachers to reflect upon implementing classroom lessons. We anticipate developing workshops combining aspects of the successful Ecology Explorers internships and workshops. During these workshops, teachers will become familiar with this project, meet local researchers, and learn more about incorporating decision making skills into their classrooms. Community Partnerships: As interns, ASU students will play a key role implementing the Center’s mission. Some of those in the Community Interns seminar will select education as their focus. Following the successful models of our Service Learning and NSF GK12 programs, we will pair the interns with teachers from the workshops; together they will develop and present modules in the classroom. Students will have the opportunity to learn communication and teaching skills, while the teachers will be provided with a student who has the content knowledge and experience with the materials being presented. The Center will also establish undergraduate and graduate internships with various community agency partners. Internships enhance two-way communication both with hands-on student training and exposure of practitioners to the attitudes and activities of the academic participants.

Outreach Activities. The cyber infrastructure for delivering environmental information to decision makers and the public rests on three primary layers that are subject to ongoing research at ASU: 1) access to a wide range of primary data sources; 2) models for transforming data into dynamic scenarios; and 3) visualization components for projecting environmental processes on

Project Description - 11 landscapes in real or accelerated time. System design emphasizes the abstraction of each of these layers, an essential feature for enabling the rapid development of applications in response to targeted research questions and for enabling the scaling of these applications to multiple delivery platforms. Decision Theater: The Decision Theater is a concept under development at ASU for a scalable and flexible application framework to exchange interactive, environmental information to primarily nonscientific audiences. The Decision Theater itself is a dedicated platform where high-performance computing facilities are co-located with advanced visualization devices such as 360-degree immersive displays and stereo presentation equipment, video conferencing resources, and available space and staff for designing inquiries and debriefing on outcomes. The capabilities of the Decision Theater and its associated infrastructure will evolve over the life of the Center. An initial goal will be to build up a core set of data sources, modeling applications and visualization tools to allow early delivery of basic scenarios of environmental processes and the social response. The Center will then establish a standard set of procedures by which new scenarios can be developed. Interaction between decision makers and Center staff will progressively shorten the cycle of data discover, access, modeling and visualization, and contribute to the growing library of scenarios. Data: Access to primary and secondary data sources will rely heavily on modern grid- computing principles such as persistent online data archives, metadata catalogs for documenting syntax and semantics, and a Web-services framework for retrieving and transforming data via standardized protocols (McCartney and Jones 2002; Schoeninger et al. 2002; Rajaskar et al. 2003). ASU’s Southwest Environmental Information Network implements such a system for searching and retrieving data from distributed archives that have been generated for the CAP LTER project (McCartney 2003). Active research projects are extending this network to partnering agencies. Modeling: Ingesting data into models and coupling outputs of models with others to build scenarios of human-natural systems is one of the foremost informatics challenges for this Center. To support the integration of these tools, we will again implement the Web-services model as a means of wrapping existing statistical, GIS, and modeling applications to provide a common Application Programming Interface (API) for the system. A key component of this layer will be the scripting and processing of workflows—a set of data retrieval, transformation, and execution steps that supports sequential, threaded, and recursive flow (Altintas et al. 2003; Ludäesher et al. 2003). Two primary application components are required to develop the system: a wizard (pilot) tool to generate the work flow script (typically expressed in eXtensible Markup Language [XML]), and a mediator (pipeline processor) which brokers the communication between the data retrieval and analytic components. Two current projects at the Center for Environmental Studies (CES) are developing prototypes of such a workflow system based on application metadata and existing workflow engines. Visualization: The visualization layer presents the outputs of previous layers using a wide range of existing and developing tools for visualization. Under prior funding, CES has created Web service interfaces for graphic displays using Scalable Vector Graphics, an XML language for platform-independent visualizations of statistical data via familiar charting formats. Three- dimensional visualization will be another key component, with a spatially scalable library of landscape surfaces upon which 2-D data and model output can be either draped on the surface using features of desktop GIS packages such as ArcGIS and Erdas Imagine, or rendered as additional 3D features visualizing subsurface and atmospheric phenomena using custom

Project Description - 12 software developed by ASU’s Partnership for Research in Stereo Modeling ( Nielson 2000; Bailey 2001) and commercial tools such as Geofusion (http://geofusion.com). Finally, animation will be incorporated to provide dynamic visualizations of scenarios. Tools for animation will range from simple recorded sequences using a variety of canned desktop and internet-based tools such as Macromedia Director or Java applets, to real-time 3D renderers operating on high- performance platforms such as the PRISM lab’s 24-processor Sun. Web Page and Evaluation Matrix: In addition to the physical presence of the Decision Theater, our public outreach will have a virtual component through a Web page that will be a clearinghouse for population, water, and climate data for the region. The Web site will be designed around graphic data presentations, internet publications such as the GP2100 eAtlas (www.gp2100.org/eatlas), and predefined animations. The site also will feature an Evaluation Matrix to connect a wide range of data about Arizona’s water future (Fig. 4). Web users will be able to quickly link to important sources of data, learn about the accuracy of that data, raise their awareness of the level of uncertainty related to each component, and draw their own conclusions given the multidimensional and uncertainty of the water demand and supply in Phoenix.

Figure 4. Will there be enough water for central Arizona?

Data Prediction Intervention Intervention Trends Impact Quality Error Possibilities Costs Population Growth (including migration) Agricultural Water Use Municipal Water Use Industry/Energy Water Use Recreational Water Use Vulnerability Climate Change Water Resources Water Policy Technological Change

SCERP-SDM: We also will explore collaboration with local (US and Mexican) scientists who have developed a planning and education model for use in environmental science courses and by local decision makers in hydrology, air quality, land use, and transportation. SCERP- SDM (Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy-System Dynamics Model) is designed to represent interrelationships among population, economy, energy, air quality, water supply, transportation, and land use in the urban regions along the US-Mexico border. Our plan is to work with SCERP scientists to add a climate dimension to the model and tailor it as a tool for playing out precipitation scenarios for our region.

THE STUDY AREA Climatic uncertainty and water management are defining themes of the prehistory and history of Central Arizona. The Hohokam occupied the Salt and Gila river valleys from before the Christian era until almost 1400 AD. Although population density and the amount of area under cultivation waxed and waned, the Hohokam were remarkably resilient given the region’s harsh, arid, and erratic environmental conditions. They grew corn, cotton, beans and squash and developed a complex canal system and social organization to build and maintain their system

Project Description - 13 (Abbott 2000). The civilization eventually collapsed as climatic fluctuations and the human response to them undermined the land’s ability to support the population (Redman 1999). Modern Phoenix was established in the middle of the 19th century as Euro-American settlers developed an agricultural oasis, first to feed the miners and the military in the region and later to produce cotton, citrus, cattle, fruits, and vegetables for a national market. In response to catastrophic floods and drought early in the 20th century, an extensive water infrastructure was constructed to provide flood control and water storage. Roosevelt Dam, 80 miles upstream from Phoenix on the Salt River was closed in 1911, and five more dams were built on the Salt and Verde rivers from 1925 to1945. During the first half of the 20th century, Phoenix was a prosper- ous agricultural society with a secondary specialization in tourism. Rapid urbanization following World War II increased the demand for municipal water, but initially, this demand was met by retiring farm acreage and transferring water to urban use. Later, increasing demand was met by pumping groundwater. By 1980, a crisis situation had developed across Arizona. Users were pumping twice the renewable supply of water, leading to land subsidence in parts of the region, aquifer compaction, and declining water quality. In response to this crisis and in exchange for federal support for the Central Arizona Project, Arizona agreed to pass legislation that would require farmland to be retired, cities to reduce per- capita water consumption, and developers to demonstrate a 100-year supply of water for their developments. This legal framework, in conjunction with the extensive water infrastructure of dams and canals, has enabled the region to accommodate massive population growth with a fixed-water supply. Explosive population growth over the past 20 years, however, is straining the regulatory framework and physical infrastructure of the region. Between 1980 and the present, the region doubled in population. The metro region is projected to gain 3 million people between 2000 and 2040, primarily on land that outside of the boundaries of the Salt River Project service area and inaccessible to the Central Arizona Project aqueduct (Fig. 5). The current drought highlights structural problems of land-hungry growth in areas beyond the physical infrastructure and challenges current regulations.

Figure 5. Projected population growth of the Phoenix metropolitan area. (Gober, adapted from Maricopa Association of Governments Web site data.)

Project Description - 14 RESULTS OF PRIOR SUPPORT Central Arizona-Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research Project: Land-Use Change and Ecological Processes in an Urban Ecosystem of the Sonoran Desert (C.L. Redman, Co- PI/PD; and three other Co-PIs), NSF DEB-9714833; $4,769,178, including 11 supplements; 11/1/97-10/31/03. The flagship of ASU’s environmental portfolio is the Central Arizona – Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research (CAP LTER) project, selected in 1997 by NSF to be one of two urban sites in the LTER network (Grimm et al. 2000). The aim of CAP LTER (which is co-directed by DCDC Co-Director Redman) is to understand the changing urban fabric of the Phoenix region’s arid ecosystem, through an understanding of how land-use change and other human activities alter ecological conditions in and around the metropolis and, conversely, how the ecological changes feedback to affect human decision, behavior, and activity (Fink et al. 2003). Over 30 senior scientists, 12 technicians, more than 50 graduate students, nearly 25 undergraduates (including REU students), and 20 community partners are currently involved in CAP research. In addition, as part of a larger interdisciplinary project to explore human-ecosystem-climate interactions at the neighborhood scale in Phoenix, the Phoenix Area Social Survey (PASS) collects and analyzes census, climate, water consumption, and environmental satisfaction information for eight neighborhoods in metro Phoenix. PASS aims to understand how urban development leads to economic, social, and physical inequalities between neighborhoods, which in turn produce neighborhood differences in micro climatic conditions related to the urban heat island effect (Harlan et al. 2003). PASS will provide DCDC with an opportunity to examine feedbacks between decision making and climate at a local level. Integrative Graduate Education and Research Training in Urban Ecology. (C.L. Redman, Co-PI/PD and four other Co-PIs), NSF-DGE 9987612; $2,758,194, including one supplement; 05/01/00-7/31/05. The main objective of the urban ecology IGERT is to educate a new kind of research scientist who is broader, more flexible, more collaborative, and more adept at linking issues in the life, earth, and social sciences than heretofore. CAP LTER provides an established research infrastructure for frontier, multidisciplinary research and graduate training in urban ecology. Training is built on a model emphasizing collaboration and teamwork; fellows earn degrees in six core departments in the life, earth, and social sciences and participate in team research, courses, and seminars that emphasize integration among disciplines. Dynamics of an Urban Carbon Dioxide Dome R. Balling, PI/PD; P. Gober and E. Wentz, Co-PIs; and two others), NSF 9817781; $498,367, 05/01/99-04/30/02. The purpose of ASU’s NSF-funded Urban Research Initiative was to monitor, analyze, and model the carbon dioxide dome over metro Phoenix. The project involved interdisciplinary teams of scientists from the fields of climatology, urban geography, transportation, GIScience, fluid dynamics, and

botany. Major findings include the presence of heightened levels of CO2 in the urban core due to topography, the regional climate, and the extensive use of vehicles for transportation; a strong

diurnal cycle of CO2 due to vehicle use and photosynthesis and respiration processes; and a weak connection to the region’s urban heat island. Agrarian Landscapes in Transition: A Cross-Scale Approach (C.L. Redman, PI/PD, A. Kinzig, and three others) NSF-DEB 0216560; 1,792440, 01/01/2003-12/31/2006. In this Biocomplexity in the Environment project, interdisciplinary researchers are integrating data on stream flow, climate and settlement across a range of temporal and spatial scales. In the first few months of this project, we have launched comparative narratives of agricultural transformations

Project Description - 15 at the six LTER sites, ranging from the Northeastern forests to the desert Southwest. These narratives emphasize the temporal legacies, cross-scale interactions, shifting feedback loops, and changing stability regimes that govern cycles of land-use change, ecological change, and human response. A Hands-On Approach to Introductory Human Geography (P. Gober and M. Kuby, Co-PIs), NSF-DUE 9752794; $81,974, 4/01/98-2/29/00. This project hosted two summer workshops to engage instructors of introductory human-geography courses in a more student- centered model of learning. The model uses hands-on materials that challenges students to collect, manipulate, analyze, and present geographic information. Based upon the in-person and survey-based feedback from the participants, we published the second edition of Human Geography in Action (John Wiley & Sons, 2002) with many improvements called for by the workshop participants. Most of the participants have adopted a hands-on approach for teaching their human geography classes using the book.

MANAGEMENT PLAN The DCDC management plan is aimed squarely at the timely flow of new knowledge and tools related to decision making under uncertainty associated with climate change and variability. To achieve this goal, the organizational structure of Center will emphasize interdisciplinary perspectives, openness to multiple, often competing, approaches, and close interaction among academics, practitioners, and citizenry (Table 1). Although the ultimate success of this Center relies on the energies and talents of the widest possible pool of participants, an endeavor of this scale and complexity requires clear lines of responsibility and an adequate infrastructure. Drs. Patricia Gober and Charles Redman, advised by an Executive Committee, will share responsibility for overall direction of the Center. Gober has extensive administrative experience as departmental chair and former president of the Association of American Geographers; familiarity with the challenges of building boundary organizations from serving on the Science Advisory Board of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and on the Board of Trustees of the Population Reference Bureau; and scientific skills in the area of population geography and the urban environment. Redman has experience directing large-scale, long-term field and laboratory projects and is Director of the Center for Environmental Studies, bringing important resources and intra- and extra-University contacts to the Center. Gober will be the primary liaison with the NSF, while Redman will be the primary interface with the University administration and community agencies. To maintain close contact with day-to-day research activities, both will serve as ex-officio members of all of the Knowledge and Engagement teams. An Executive Committee composed of the Co-PI’s, the informatics manager, the education director, the executive administrator, and the leader of the External Advisory Council will advise the project co-directors. Together with the project co-directors, the Executive Committee will be responsible for the quality of all research conducted, the successful interaction between scientists and policy makers, implementing changes in personnel and resource distributions, and the monitoring of the timely dissemination of information and tools to the Center’s diverse constituencies. The External Advisory Council will meet in Phoenix once a year and is composed of experts representing a diversity of fields and organizations concerned with decision making and climate uncertainty. Jim Buizer, formerly the director of the Climate and Societal Interactions Division at NOAA, and a leader in the establishment of boundary organizations for the application of

Project Description - 16 environmental information such as the International Research Institute for Climate Prediction and the Climate Outlook Flora, will chair the council. A Stakeholder Advisory Council will meet twice a year with representatives from federal, state, regional, city, and tribal governments Ray Quay, Assistant Director of Water Resources for the City of Phoenix and Executive Director of the Greater Phoenix 2100 Project at ASU, will lead this council. Quay’s expertise includes regional and local water-supply policy, strategic planning, futures analysis tools, strategic assessment of multidimensional output from human and natural systems models, and the application of futures analysis tools in the development and assessment of urban and regional policy. Earlier in the proposal we identified knowledge areas and engagement areas crucial for the Center’s mission. Teams organized around these areas will identify issues, seek solutions, distribute results, and recruit additional participants (Table 2). To underscore the Center’s openness to competing ideas and innovation, and because each area is broader than a single discipline, we have included more than one perspective within a team. Many of the participants will actually contribute in several knowledge and engagement areas, but we have listed their association with just one Team. To convey the extraordinarily wide-ranging expertise and experience of the participants, we briefly identify the co-leaders of each of the Knowledge and Engagement teams below:

Science and Technology Policy/Boundary Organizations. Michael Crow, President of ASU, is focused on building a new type of American university, one directly engaged in the economic and social success of its region and focused on questions central to the building of a sustainable and globally correct environment and economy for Arizona. David White’s research

Table 1.

Project Directors and Executive Committee Patricia Gober, PI/Co-PD Jim Buizer, Chair, External Advisory Committee Charles L. Redman, PI/Co-PD Peter H. McCartney, Informatics Manager Robert Bolin, Co-PI Margaret C. Nelson, Education Director Grady Gammage, Jr., Co-PI Executive Administrator, TBN Thomas J. Taylor, Co-PI

External Advisory Council Jim Buizer, Chair On loan to ASU from NOAA Helen Ingram University of California-Irvine Urban and Regional Planning Sharon Megal University of Arizona, Associate Director of Water Resources Research Center Rita P. Maquire President, Arizona Center or Public Policy Edward Miles University of Washington, Marine Affairs Peter Arzberger Director, Life Sciences Initiatives, University of California at San Diego William Brock University of Wisconsin at Madison/Department of Economics Robert Harriss Environmental & Societal Impacts Group, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

Stakeholders Advisory Council Ray Quay, Leader Assistant Director Water Services, City of Phoenix Steve Cleveland City Manager, City of Goodyear Michael S. Ellegood PE, Chief Engineer and General Manager, Flood Control District of Maricopa County Bruce Ellis Chief, Environmental Resources Management Division, US Bureau of Reclamation Jim Holway Assistant Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources John Keane Executive Policy Analyst, Salt River Project Pat Mariella Director, Department of Environmental Quality, Gila River Indian Community

Project Description - 17 Table 2. Knowledge and Engagement Teams

KNOWLEDGE TEAMS

Science and Technology Policy/Boundary Organizations Michael M. Crow, co-leader President of ASU/Science Policy David D. White, co-leader Rec. Management/natural resource science, policy, and management Michael S. Ellegood PE, Chief Engineer & General Mgr, Flood Control District of Maricopa Co. Grady Gammage, Jr. Real Estate and Water Attorney Edward J. Hackett Sociology Joan McGregor Philosophy/ethics Robert Melnick Morrison Institute for Public Policy

Climate Science Robert C. Balling, co-leader Geography/climatology Joseph A. Zehnder, co-leader Geography/meterology Anthony J. Brazel Geography/climatology Andrew W. Ellis Geography/climatology Susanne Grossman-Clarke Engineering/climate John Hetrick Salt River Project/Senior Water Rights Analyst Margot W. Kaye Ecology/paleoclimatology

Vulnerability Analysis and Resilience Theory Robert Bolin, co-leader Sociology/environmental risk Ann P. Kinzig, co-leader School of Life Sciences/resilience David G. Casagrande Anthropology/perception Sharon L. Harlan Sociology/survey research John L. Keane Executive Policy Analyst, Salt River Project Ray Quay City of Phoenix/urban planning

Decision Science Elizabeth A. Corley, co-leader School of Public Affairs Thomas J. Taylor, co-leader Mathematics/Bayesian estimation John M. Anderies School of Life Sciences/applied mathematics William A. Griffin Family and Human Development/agent-based modeling Donald L. Keefer Economics Peter R. Killeen Psychology Craig W. Kirkwood Supply Chain Management/technologies to improve decision making Michael J. Kuby Geography/multi-objective programming Dallas Reigle Salt River Project/water-supply forecasting, watershed monitoring William A. Verdini Economics

ENGAGEMENT TEAMS

GIScience and Decision-Support Tools/Outreach Activities Peter H. McCartney, co-leader CES/Information Technology Elizabeth A. Wentz, co-leader Geography/GIS Corinna Gries CES/Information Technology James M. Holway Assistant Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources Anshuman Razdan Information Technology/visualization Jeremy Rowe Information Technology/visualization

Education and Human Resource Development Margaret C. Nelson, co-leader Anthropology/inquiry-based education Charlene Saltz, co-leader CES/environmental education Monica Elser CES/Ecology Explorers James A Middleton Associate Dean of Education/College of Education Edward Sadalla Environmental Psychology Kerry Schwartz University of Arizona, Water Resources Research Center, Project WET

Project Description - 18 interests include the interface of environmental science and policy, especially the sociological study of boundary work; the role of scientific and local knowledge in decision making; and public understanding of science in environmental conflicts. Climate Science. Robert Balling focuses upon climate-change issues, particularly how well historical records of climate match numerical model predictions given the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases. Joseph Zehnder’s research interests include large and mesoscale dynamic meteorology with an emphasis on tropical and semi-arid subtropical regions, urban climate and weather, and use of remotely sensed data for model initialization and validation. Vulnerability Analysis and Resilience Theory. Robert Bolin studies environmental justice in urban areas, socio-environmental transformations in cities, the political ecology of urban hazards, and hazard vulnerability assessment. Ann Kinzig’s research focuses upon social and ecological processes in urban open areas, and implications for biodiversity and other ecosystem services; human perceptions of environmental change, and implications for social and ecological resilience. She has been a key member of the Resilience Alliance. Decision Science. Elizabeth Corley’s research interests include the intersection of science/engineering and public policy for environmental decision making; the roles of stakeholder values and expert knowledge in environmental decision making; and survey research design and analysis. Thomas Taylor’s research interests include dynamical systems theory, Bayesian estimation and prediction techniques as applied to characterization of dynamical systems, data-fusion technology, and applied stochastic modeling. GIScience and Decision-Support Tools/Outreach Activities. Peter McCartney focuses on information systems for environmental and archaeological research, use of metadata for designing automated internet access to data and applications, and intelligent agents for incorporating multiple models into comprehensive analyses. Elizabeth Wentz’s research interests include the development and use of geographic information systems (GIS), spatial statistical analyses, urban and environmental studies, and GIS education. Education and Human Resource Development. Margaret Nelson conducts archaeological research and teaches research process and critical thinking to graduate and undergraduate students in interdisciplinary and discipline-based courses. In addition, she collaborates with pre- collegiate teachers in developing inquiry-based instruction and critical thinking in science and social-science curriculum. She has received many teaching awards including the ASU Centen- nial Professorship in 2002. Charlene Saltz’s interests are in effective environmental education programs, developing and sustaining K-12 and University partnerships and environmental service-learning projects.

BRIDGES TO THE COMMUNITY The proposal identified 10 targeted research opportunities we will address in the early years of the Center. Teams of researchers and practitioners will be assembled, with members drawn from Knowledge and Engagement areas. Teams will target specific research objectives will be made in consultation with stakeholders and priorities will be based upon discussions held at the annual “Academic and Community Symposium.” The symposium will communicate the activities of the Center to a broad audience and evaluate the success of the information and tools being disseminated. We will invite a well-known national or international expert to deliver a keynote address, which will serve to attract a larger community and academic audience. The

Project Description - 19 speaker will also spend time with the Executive Committee discussing progress of research and outreach activities. Four other means to build bridges to the community and promote understanding among academics, practitioners, and policy makers will be undertaken: • We will develop a program of executive exchanges among staff members from water and planning agencies and ASU researchers. The tenure of these exchanges will be responsive to the situation, but our plans will be for annual “reassignments.” • We will initiate an undergraduate and graduate student internship program with local education, government, and private organizations. • We will develop a series of workshops to promote understanding and collaboration among academics, practitioners, and policy makers, with workshops oriented at each of these audiences. • We will hold a series of workshops and meetings with decision maker and researchers, as outlined in the Integrative Assessment plan (see Page 7). A symbol of our commitment to creating a true boundary organization that promotes meaningful interaction is to locate our Center in ASU’s downtown Phoenix campus rather than on ASU’s main campus. We will be close to government and private offices where access is easy. In addition, Grady Gammage Jr., a local attorney and long-time water expert and member of the CAP Board of Directors, has agreed to serve as a Co-PI and member of our Executive Committee and has contributed substantially to the preparation of this proposal.

BROADER IMPACTS In framing our Center as a boundary organization that bridges scientific knowledge and regional decision making, we focus attention explicitly on the translation of science into better informed environmental decisions. In directly engaging scientists with decisions makers, the Center will produce better climate forecasts and programs to improve their implementation; decision-support tools for local leaders, citizens, students, and other researchers; and innovative educational programs that foster interdisciplinary study of coupled human and natural systems, and first-hand practical experience. Researchers, together with stakeholders, will identify potential vulnerabilities and develop various scenarios reflecting variability due to climate uncertainty, legal constraints, and the changing patterns of human response. The culmination of our outreach efforts will be the development of a Decision Theater, a scalable and flexible physical space for exchanging these scenarios and other environmental information to nonscientific audiences at our downtown Phoenix campus. These products of science, policy analysis, human decision making, and public engagement will eventually reach far beyond the local area because, in many ways, Phoenix is a harbinger of how rapidly growing, 21st-century cities react to environmental uncertainty and climate change.

Project Description - 20 References

Abbott, D. R. 2000. Ceramics and community organization among the Hohokam. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Agrawala S., K Broad, and D. H. Guston. 2001. Integrating climate forecasts and societal decision making: Challenges to an emergent boundary organization. Science, Technology, & Human Values 26 (4):454-477. Altintas, S. B., D. Buttler, S. Chandra, Z. Cheng, M. Coleman, T. Critchlow, A. Gupta, W. Han, L. Liu, B. Ludäscher, C. Pu, R. Moore, A. Shoshani, and M. Vouk. 2003. A modeling and execution environment for distributed scientific workflows. In 15th Intl. Conference on Scientific and Statistical Database Management (SSDBM), Boston, MA. Arizona Department of Economic Security. 2002. July 1, 2002 Population estimates for Arizona, counties and incorporated places. Online: http://www.de.state.az.us/links/economic/ webpage/popweb/02-00alphanew.pdf (visited 07/2003). ADWR (Arizona Department of Water Resources). 2000. Phoenix AMA Virtual Tour. Online: http://www.water.az.gov/adwr/Content/Publications/files/Phoenix_AMA_Tour.ppt (viewed 7/2003). Armstrong, M. P., P. J. Densham, P. Lolonis, and G. Rushton. 1992. Cartographic displays to support locational decision making. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 19(3):154-164. Bailey, M. 2001. Visualization viewpoints: Interacting with direct volume rendering. Computer Graphics and Applications 21(1):10-12. Balling, R. C., and S. W. Brazel. 1987. Time and space characteristics of the Phoenix urban heat island. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 21:75-81. Berkes, F., and C. Folke, eds. 1998. Linking social and ecological systems: Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bolin, R., with L. Stanford. 1998 The Northridge earthquake: Vulnerability and disaster. Routledge, London; New York. Cai, X., D. C. McKinney, and L. S. Lasdon. 2002. A framework for sustainability analysis in water resources management and application to the Syr Darya Basin. Water Resources Research 38(6):1-14. Carver, S. J. 1991. Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographical information systems. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 5(3):321-339. Clark, W. C., and G. Majone.1985. The critical use of scientific inquiries with policy implications. Science, Technology, and Human Values 19(3):6-19. Cutter, S. L. 2003. The vulnerability of science and the science of vulnerability. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 93(1):1-12. Doucet, A., N. Freitas, and N. Gordon. 2001. Sequential Monte Carlo methods in practice. Springer-Verlag, New York. Ebenezer, J., and U. Zoller. 1993. Grade 10 students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward science teaching and school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 30(2):175-186. Eden, S. 1996. Public participation in environmental policy: Considering scientific, counter- scientific and non-scientific contributions. Public Understanding of Science 5:183-204.

References - 1 Evensen, G. In press. The ensemble Kalman Filter: Theoretical formulation and practical implementation. Ocean Dynamics 53:In press. Fink, J., F. Steiner, N. B. Grimm, and C. L. Redman. 2003. Greater Phoenix 2100: Building a national urban environmental research agenda. In G. Heiken and R. Fakundiny, editors. Geosciences in the cities. American Geophysical Union Monograph. Folke, C., S. Carpenter, T. Elmqvist, L. Gunderson, C. S. Holling, B. Walker, J. Bengtsson, F. Berkes, J. Colding, K. Danell, M. Falkenmark, L. Gordon, R. Kasperson, N. Kautsky, A. P. Kinzig, S. A. Levin, K.-G. Mahler, F. Moberg, L. Ohlsson, P. Olsson, E. Ostrom, W. Reid, J. Rockstrom, H. Savenije, and U. Svedin. 2002. Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Scientific background paper on resilience for the World Summit on Sustainable Development. The Environmental Advisory Council to the Swedish Government. Gershunov, A., and T.P. Barnett. 1998. Interdecadal modulation of ENSO teleconnections. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 79:2715-2725. Gober, P., and E. K. Burns. 2002. The size and shape of Phoenix’s urban fringe. Journal of Planning Research and Education 21(4):379-90. Gober, P., E. K. Burns, K. Knowles-Yanez, and J. James.1998. Rural to urban land conversion in metropolitan Phoenix. Pp. 40-45 in J. S. Hall, N. J. Cayer, and N Welch, eds., Growth in Arizona: The machine in the garden. Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Arizona State University, Tempe. Griffin, W. A. 2000. A conceptual and graphical method for converging multi-subject behavioral observational data into a single process indicator. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 32(1):120-133. Griffin, W. A. 2003. Agent-based Models and computer simulation as a methodological aid for the study of micro-social behavior. Society for Research in Child Development, biennial meeting, April, Tampa, FL. Grimm, N. B., J. M. Grove, S. T. A. Pickett, and C. L. Redman. 2000. Integrated approaches to long-term studies of urban ecological systems. Bioscience 50:71-584. Gunderson, L., and C. S. Holling, eds. 2002. Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, DC. Gunderson, L., C. S. Holling, and S. S. Light, eds. 1995. Bridges and barriers to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. Columbia University Press, New York. Guston, D. H. 1997. Critical appraisal in science and technology policy analysis: The example of Science, the Endless Frontier. Policy Sciences 30:233-255. Guston, D. H., W. Clark, T. Keating, D. Cash, S. Moser, C. Miller, and C. Powers. 2000. Report of the Workshop on Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science. 9-10 December 1999, Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs (BCSIA) Discussion Paper 2000-32. Piscataway, NJ: Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute at Rutgers University and UMDNJ-RWJMS; Cambridge, MA: Global Environmental Assessment Project, Environmental and Natural Resources Program, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Available at http://environment.harvard.edu/gea. Harlan, S., L. Larsen, T. Rex, S. Wolf, E. Hackett, A. Kirby, R. Bolin, A. Nelson, and D. Hope. 2003. The Phoenix Area Social Survey: Community and Environment in a desert metropolis.

References - 2 Central Arizona - Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research Contribution No. 2, Center for Environmental Studies, Arizona State University, Tempe. Hammond, J. S., R. L. Keeney, and H. Raiffa. 1999. Smart choices: A practical guide to making better decisions. Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Harvey, A. 1991. Forecasting, structural time series models and the Kalman filter. Cambridge University Press. Hewitt, K. 1997. Regions of risk: A geographical introduction to disasters. Longman, Harlow, Essex. Hewitt, K., ed. 1983. Interpretations of calamity from the viewpoint of human ecology. Allen and Unwin, Boston. Holling, C. S. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems 4(5):390-405. Houghton, J. T., Y. Ding, D. J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P. J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C. A. Johnson, eds. 2001. Climate change 2001: The scientific basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. Hsu, N. S., and K. W. Cheng. 2002. Network flow optimization model for basin-scale water supply planning. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 128(2):102-112. Ingold, T., and T. Kurttila. 2000. Perceiving the Environment in Finnish Lapland. Body and Society 6(3-4):183-196. Janssen, M. A., ed. 2002. Complexity and Ecosystem management: The theory and practice of multi-agent systems. In Association with the International Society of Ecological Economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA Jasanoff, S. 1990. The fifth branch: Science advisors as policymakers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Kasemir, B., M. B. A. van Asselt, G. Dürrenberger, and C. C. Jaeger. 1999. Integrated assessment: Multiple perspectives in interaction. International Journal of Environment and Pollution 11(4):407-425. Kasperson, R. E., and J. X. Kasperson. 1996. Risk communication: The social amplification and attenuation of risk. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 545 Annals 95. Keeney, R. 1988. Building models of values. European Journal of Operational Research 37(2):149-157. Kinzig, A.P., D. Starrett, B. Bolin, P. Dasgupta, P. Ehrlich, C. Folke, M. Hanneman, A.M. Jansson, B.O. Jansson, N. Kautsky, S. Levin, J. Lubchenco, K.G. Mäler, S. Pacala, S. Schneider, D. Siniscalco, and B. Walker. In press. Coping with uncertainty: A call for a new science-policy forum. To appear in Ambio in press, 2003. Kuby, M., S. Qingqi, T. Watanatada, S. Xufei, C. Wei, X. Zhijun, Z. Dadi, Z. Chuntai, Y. Xiaodong, L. Fatang, P. Cook, T. Friesz, S. Neuman, R. Jiang, W. Xuesheng, and G. Shenhuai. 1995. Planning China's coal and electricity delivery system. Interfaces 25:41–68 (Special Issue: Franz Edelman Award Papers). Laird, F. N. 1993. Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision making. Science, Technology, & Human Values 18(3):342-361.

References - 3 Lieberman, G., and L. Hoody. 1998. Closing the achievement gap: Using the environment as an integrating context for learning. Report to the Pew Charitable Trust, State Education and Environment Roundtable, San Diego, CA. Macal, C. M., and M. J. North. 2002. Simulating the energy markets and infrastructure interdependencies with agent-based models. Pp.195 - 214 In C. Macal and D. Sllach, eds., Proceedings of the workshop on social agents: Ecology, exchange and evolution. University of Chicago & Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago. Mantua, N. J., S. R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J. M. Wallace, and R. C. Francis. 1997. A Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78:1069-1079. McCartney, P. 2003. SEINet: Metadata-mediated access to distributed ecological data. Databits Spring, 2003. http://intranet.lternet.edu/archives/documents/Newsletters/DataBits/03spring/ McCartney, P., and M. B. Jones. 2002. Using XML-encoded metadata as a basis for advanced information systems for ecological research. In Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics Proceedings 2002. Meehl, G. A., and W. M. Washington. 1996. El Niño-like climate change in a model with

increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Nature 382:56-60. Mitchell, R. C., A. G. Mertig, A. G., and R. E. Dunlap. 1991. Twenty years of environmental mobilization: Trends among national environmental organizations. Society and Natural Resources 4:219-234. NRC (National Research Council). 1996. National science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Newbold, S. C. 2002. Integrated modeling for watershed management: Multiple objectives and spatial effects. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38(2):341-353. Nielson, G. M. 2000. Volume modeling. Pp. 29-50 in M. Chen, A. Kaufman, and R. Yagel, eds., Volume graphics. Springer. North, M. J. 2001. Toward strength and stability: Agent-based modeling of infrastructure markets. Social Science Computer Review 307-323. Pielke Jr., R., and D. Sarewitz. 2002-03. Wanted: Scientific leadership on climate. Issues in Science and Technology Winter:27-30. Quinlan, A. 2003. Building resilience to promote sustainability. IHDP: Newsletter of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change 2(2003):4- 5. Redman, C. 1999. Human impacts on ancient environments. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Redman, C. L., and A. P. Kinzig. 2003. Resilience of past landscapes: Resilience theory, society, and the longue durée. Conservation Ecology 7(1):14[online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/ vol7/iss1/art14 ReVelle, C., E. Joeres, and W. Kirby. 1969. The linear decision rule in reservoir management and design, 1: Development of the stochastic model. Water Resources Research 5(4):767- 777. Rotmans, J. and M.B.A. van Asselt. 2002. Integrated assessment: Current practices and challenges for the future. In: Abaza, H. and A. Baranzini, eds., Implementing sustainable

References - 4 development: Integrated assessment and participatory decision-making processes. Edward Elgar Publishing. Schoeninger, R., C. Gries, and P. McCartney. 2002. Xanthoria: A SOAP-based distributed query system, submitted to International Symposium on Distributed Objects and Applications held October 28 - November 1, 2002. Thumerer T., A. P. Jones, and D. Brown. 2000. A GIS based coastal management system for climate change associated flood risk assessment on the east coast of England. International Journal of Geographical Information Science14(3):265-281. Turner II, B. L., R. E. Kasperson, P. A. Matson, J. J. McCarthy, R. W. Corell, L. Christensen, N. Eckley, J. X. Kasperson, A. Luers, M. L. Martello, C. Polsky, A. Pulsipher, and A. Schiller. 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 100(14):8074-8079. Online: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/ 10.1073/pnas.1231335100 von Winterfeldt, D., and W. Edwards.1986. Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Wyman, M. M., and M. Kuby. 1996. Proactive optimization: A multiobjective technology location model for designing toxic waste systems. Location Science 3:167-185. Zehnder, J. A. 2001. A comparison of convergence based and flux based convective parameterizations in the context of tropical cyclogenesis. J. Atmos. Sci. 58:283-301. Zehnder, J. A. 2002. Simple modifications to improve fifth-generation Pennsylvania State University-National Center for Atmospheric Research mesoscale model performance for the Phoenix, Arizona metropolitan area. J. Appl. Met. 41:971-979. Zehr, S. C. 2000. Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. Public Understanding of Science 9:85-103.

References - 5